Total posts: 12,563
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let the pacifist drop the first stone. Government is violence. A bad government is not something you can just turn a blind eye to.
Well, I dont know what definition of a pacifist are you using.
Maybe pacifist means something different in MAGA.
You assume that civil war would fix government, and that government is bad because its violent.
Well, I dont see how a civil war will produce non-violent government, but you have your assumptions.
About your military assumptions.
To put it nicely: you simply haven't a clue. People way more educated than you on the subject were in command of the Russian attack force on Ukraine. They brought tanks. Where is the Taliban? They must be gone because all their guns wouldn't be able to do shit against just one tank right? Oh right, they won.
So you assume that overweight MAGA civilians are as capable as Talibans or Ukrainian military supported by whole world.
I know, its like weight lifting. You see the other guy do it, and you think you can too.
The question isn't what can be destroyed, but what can be destroyed without losing what you claim to be fighting for. By the time deep state tanks can open up with antipersonnel 120mm rounds on American buildings with unknown number of non-combatants in them there won't be anything left of this country.The deep state will lose the baseline logistics supported needed to carry on any kind of war long long before the war escalates to that point.
So you assume that MAGA starting civil war and killing Americans and US soldiers wont make MAGA lose supporters.
I mean, sure, plenty of crazy people in the USA.
I just wonder how many would support your cause after that.
..and those parts of it which aren't crippled by internal mistrust will join a side
So you think its a good idea that US military fights US military?
I guess after that, there would really be no USA anymore.
It would just be war everywhere.
No one interfered last time and no one will interfere this time for the same reasons. They have their own enemies and if they get involved so will their enemies.Unlike proxy wars like Korea or Vietnam there is no guarantee about final policies and whoever wins will have nukes. It's a huge risk with no reward.Now they will send weapons, to both sides; and given the last 60 years of deep state arms dealings most of those weapons will be of US manufacture.
Ah, so you assume that now is same as 300 years ago.
And you assume that it wouldnt be worth the risk to send help because you assume that some unspecified enemies will get involved.
And you assume that there is no guarantee about who will win, but entire NATO and allies vs MAGA kinda tells you the odds.
So you should support it because you're a big fan of Kim right?
No, I wouldnt support it.
I do think that Kim Jong Un is the most skilled politician with supernatural abilities in command, politics and leadership.
But that doesnt mean I would support the act which would basically abolish democracy in USA and make Putin laugh.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Pascal must have been of the belief that "god" couldn't tell when someone was faking it.
I figured that if fear of punishment is the only reason for obedience, then its not really honest and loving serving to God.
"I only serve you so I dont get tortured by you" doesnt sound like a loving relationship at all.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Pascal was working on the assumption that GOD was stupid rather than sensible.I think that a lot of theists work on the same assumption.
The main mistake of theists is assuming how God thinks and what God would do.
Created:
The only ones who would benefit from your "prefered outcome" are Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Created:
Guys, you really need to stop promoting civil wars.
Your entire group with guns wouldnt be able to do shit against just one tank.
US military is the strongest military in the world.
And it has plenty of allies which would come to help to uphold government.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
There is no theory which can prove everything, due to many unknowns.
That creates space for assumptions.
Created:
There are these options:
1. There is God who punishes atheists, but not christians
2. There is God who punishes christians, but not atheists
3. There is God who punishes both christians and atheists
4. There is God who doesnt punish christians and doesnt punish atheists
5. There is no God
Assuming unknown probability of each option, these being the only options, we see that 4 out of 5 options are either beneficial either neutral to atheists, same as for Christians.
The main point of debate is which options are more likely, but assuming unknown probability, we see that there is no reason to believe atheists will have it worse, not even by number of options.
Created:
From what I can conclude, facts should remain the main point of any discussion.
In discussion, there are:
1. Facts which prove the topic
2. Assumption A which disproves the topic
3. Assumption B which disproves assumption A
4. Assumption that both A and B are false, leaving only facts
5. Assumption that both A and B are true, but negate each other, leaving only facts.
Going by number of options, there are:
1. Facts
2. Assumptions which disprove topic
3. Assumptions which prove topic
4. Assumption that 2 and 3 are false assumptions
5. Assumption that 2 and 3 are true assumptions, but negate each other
So we can see that by mere number of options, assumptions which disprove topic are only 1/5, where all other options support topic by upholding facts are 4/5.
So how does it happen that 1/5 assumption ends up dominating over 4/5, carrying conversation into meaningless rant?
Thats because 1/5 often gives enough doubt to actually be considered, and because it creates a hole in the story which facts cannot explain or cover.
What also happens is that facts get turned into assumptions.
Because every fact must be observable to be verified, it already follows that non-observable facts are non-verified.
And even observable facts have weaknesses, apparently depending on an assumption that what you see is really there and not an illusion.
Also assuming that conclusion from observation is correct and not itself an assumption.
So really, most discussions tend to go to area of assumptions.
But there is a way to counter assumptions, and that is by using lots of facts.
Even if opponent keeps using assumptions, there is nothing which says that those assumptions are correct.
But facts are correct, because most people assume that what we observe is what exists.
So facts do tend to help change people's mind, where assumptions always leave conversation at nowhere.
However, assumptions will always be the main weapon of those who do not have facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let's try this; if a 5 year old asked you whether Freddy Krueger was real, what would you say and how confident in your answer would you be?
A simple honest answer of "I dont know" solves those situations and doesnt even take effort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Which is exactly why assuming non-existence Isa the only logical default position
Thats an assumption.
The idea that something doesnt exist until proof shows up is contradictive, as something first needs to exist for there to be any possible proof of it.
The logical default position is "unknown", because it isnt known.
And you dont need to pray to Zeus because of too many options being available, which even when considered possible or unknown, dont lead to conclusion that you have to pick one of them as existing and all the others as not.
"Unknown" does not lead to conclusion that you should pray to Zeus or choose some of the unknown options as real.
So if "unknown" has no bad consequences to it, it is both practical and logical default position.
As I have explained repeatedly already, an assumption is not an assertion. You continue to confuse two very different things.
Thats the problem. You want to use assumption as logical position, where something without proof of being true or high probability of being true cannot be at the same time a logical choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They dont need to be refuted, as they are not individual cost.
I guess you dont understand that government covers part of the cost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's your number? What was the cost in 2010?
Its your claim. How about you prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you say you don't file taxes without saying you don't file taxes?
You do realize that poor people without health insurance dont pay much tax?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The OP is also something you cannot read due to a Billionaire's paywall
I dont see how does that make your source any better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No wonder the costs of healthcare tripled since 2010....
You do understand that costs of healthcare did not triple for individuals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well thank god for the healthcare industry for all those people who would otherwise choose to not get insurance and now are compelled by the force
Yes, compelled by force, prevented from dying from illness.
Were they really compelled by force?
One would assume that most of them would want health insurance for them and their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah great, more sources without quotation that I cant even open because its pay to read.
Created:
The extermination talk is really too much.
Thats the kind of talk that makes wars, not agreements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wanted to know how much it was before a government managed economy. (before 2010)
Enough to have 15.5% americans without health insurance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as Obamacare, made tremendous strides in reducing the share of uninsured Americans.
Since 2010 when the ACA was passed, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by nearly half, from 15.5% of the population to 8.3% of the population (48 million Americans to 27 million Americans).
In the last year alone, a record-breaking 16.3 million people selected a healthcare option from the ACA open marketplace."
Created:
Posted in:
"America is the only high-income country that does not guarantee health coverage for all its citizens. As a result, 28 million Americans still have no health insurance.
In 2018, medical bills forced 8 million people into poverty. Despite the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic over the last 3 years, insurance rates have not meaningfully changed.
When we dig into specific states, Texas is a microcosm of the country’s broader issues, with the lowest health insurance coverage rates in the country, leading to massive inequality across communities.
Lack of health insurance produces inequalities. Families without insurance have higher child mortality rates than those with insurance and lower overall life expectancies.
They are 20% less likely to seek the care they need, and they are 2x more likely to have trouble paying medical bills, causing cycles of poverty."
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as Obamacare, made tremendous strides in reducing the share of uninsured Americans.
Since 2010 when the ACA was passed, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by nearly half, from 15.5% of the population to 8.3% of the population (48 million Americans to 27 million Americans).
In the last year alone, a record-breaking 16.3 million people selected a healthcare option from the ACA open marketplace."
Created:
Posted in:
Its crazy that anyone poor would vote to lose healthcare, but poor MAGA are apparently doing that, maybe not aware of it.
Do they know how much the healthcare would cost without the help from government?
"In 2023, the average national cost for health insurance is $456 for an individual and $1,152 for a family per month."
However, without government spending trillions to cover the cost, and covering much more for poor people, the cost of healthcare for poor would increase greatly.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
There is a large number of people here who didnt read your relevant debates, but will post bunch of long comments opposing your view.
You will essentially be debating 1 vs 5.
Its not favorable, since the large number of voices tends to drown facts coming from 1 person.
I am not saying that you shouldnt debate here about drugs.
I am just saying that debating rules dont apply here.
It will be much harder to get anywhere, as it often is with any widely opposed view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
it is a position one takes out of practical necessity so that we can function
I dont think one has to assume non-existence to be able to function.
You can assume that Zeus's existence is unknown, and still decide not to pray to him.
There are unlimited options of Gods, so even if they all can exist, praying to all is impossible.
So we can conclude that praying is a waste of time, because there is practically no chance of guessing the right God.
And there is even an option of God who punishes those who pray.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That is, I have to decide whether I am going to live my life under the assumption that he doesn't exist, or the assumption that he does. Those are my only two options
The other option is to assume that state of his existence is unknown, which is the truth.
Being unknown, you dont have to pray to him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Despite the protests of some billionaires, this longstanding progressive agenda item is becoming increasingly mainstream.
Wealth inequality in the US has risen sharply in the past few decades, and the share of Americans holding an unfavorable view of billionaires has grown in the past few years.
In a 2021 analysis, ProPublica calculated that between 2014 to 2018, the 25 richest Americans — a list including Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, and Jeff Bezos — paid a true tax rate of 3.4 percent on their income.
The ultra-rich can do this because most of their wealth stems from holding assets, not from wage income — and they use an array of obscure tax loopholes and accounting moves to receive a lower tax rate on their assets than they otherwise would.
According to the tax records ProPublica obtained, Musk paid zero federal income tax in 2018. Former President Donald Trump paid no federal income tax in 2020 because he reported so many business losses that year.
That’s perhaps why Biden has adopted an agenda of making billionaires pay their “fair share.”
The president’s recent attention on taxing the wealthy is a stark contrast from what he infamously told a room of wealthy donors during his presidential campaign in 2019 — that nothing would fundamentally change for them.
Since assuming office, however, Biden has professed a desire to change quite a lot for the ultra-rich in an effort to rein in wealth inequality and raise revenue for important government programs such as Social Security.
Biden’s budget plan last year contained many similar ideas as this year’s, including a 20 percent tax on households with over $100 million.
(That proposal, the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax Act, was introduced in the House but hasn’t been voted on.)
In his State of the Union address in February, Biden boasted that he’d passed a 15 percent minimum tax on large corporations as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
“But let’s finish the job. There’s more to do,” he said. “We have to reward work, not just wealth,” he announced, as he called for a new minimum tax on the ultra-rich."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"A key part of Biden's new economic policy agenda is a billionaire's tax, which would set a minimum tax for the wealthiest Americans, the White House said.
The Biden administration has offered scant details about the proposal, but it appears to closely resemble a policy that Biden put forward last March.
At that time, he called for a tax rate of at least 20% on Americans who bring in at least $100 million per year.
The tax rate would apply both to income and unrealized gains, a measure of the value a person's unsold investments have accumulated.
"President Biden is a capitalist and believes that anyone should be able to become a millionaire or a billionaire," the White House said in a statement Tuesday.
"He also believes that it is wrong for America to have a tax code that results in America's wealthiest households paying a lower tax rate than working families."
Between 2018 and 2020, the nation's wealthiest 400 families paid an average tax rate of 8%, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers found."
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1.6 trillion dollars / 37.9 million = $42,216 per poor person
Ah yes, the simple calculations where money magically finds poor people and teleports itself into their pockets for them to spend as they wish.
Do you deny that food stamps exist in USA?
"The numbers vary from month to month. But in April 2023, the most recent month with available figures, 41.9 million people in 22.2 million households received SNAP benefits. That translates to 12.5% of the total U.S. population.
On average, 41.2 million people in 21.6 million households received monthly SNAP benefits in the 2022 fiscal year, which ran from October 2021 through September 2022.
The program operates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands. A separate nutrition assistance program covers Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands."
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Because the math says that they wouldn't be very poor if it did.
The math says that:
1. Not all of those people are employed, so you adding the money to imaginary wages equals imaginary math.
Also, even wage of 3000$ would only equal to 36,000$ a year, which does not go into 100k when you add your imaginary value of 40k.
And the wage of people in poverty tends to go 8$ per hour. Even with 10 working hours a day, thats 80$ a day, so about 2000$ a month, not even 3000$.
2. Do you have any data on how welfare and help is distributed?
"The United States spends approximately $2.3 trillion on federal and state social programs include cash assistance, health insurance, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, and education and childcare assistance. Similar benefits are sometimes provided by the private sector either through policy mandates or on a voluntary basis. Employer-sponsored health insurance is an example of this."
"Medicaid and CHIP Grants to States
$201,389
$266,565
Food Stamps (SNAP)
61,717
82,603
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
40,027
55,123
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
38,315
50,544
Housing assistance
37,205
49,739
Child Nutrition Program
13,558
20,842
Support Payments to States, TANF
28,980
20,842
Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP)
5,695
6,671
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
2,542
3,704
Notes:
* Spending in millions of dollars"
Now do the math thing again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When I say we presume non-existence I'm talking about from a practical standpoint, because our beliefs inform our action
And I am saying its unnecessary and illogical to assume non-existence of that which can exist.
Again, just because something can exist does not mean you have to act as if it certainly exists.
Assuming non-existence without proof is illogical, and doesnt carry any practical benefit.
Not assuming non-existence does not mean assuming existence.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@Double_R
@n8nrgim
I am kinda doing multiple experiments.
Its not just about losing weight.
Losing some weight might come as an extra result.
The real test is to see if 1000 calorie diet is going to cause weight loss at all.
I am trying to determine if metabolism will slow down to the point where body only needs 1000 calories a day.
If that happens in a couple of days, it should prove that body adapts to this diet and maintains its weight.
If I do lose some weight, then of course it will follow that body didnt adapt itself.
There is no health risk involved, since I am overweight and any calories which body needs are available in body fat.
So in case body needs extra calories, it will just use the ones from body fat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Until you are presented with a valid reason to take the possibility of their existence seriously, you assume they don't.
It would be logically incorrect to assume that they dont exist.
I find a more correct position is to admit they can exist, while not acting as if they do exist.
Just because something can exist, doesnt mean you have to act as if it exists.
Every day, there is a chance that a person will die.
Thats a real chance, a fact that will happen one day, yet person, despite being aware of that chance, doesnt act as if that chance will come true every day.
Assuming non-existence is unnecessary and logically flawed.
Its better to simply act by assuming that it might exist, not that it does or doesnt.
Since there are many versions of God, its really more of a personal choice if someone will be more towards one God or the other.
When you say that something can exist, it doesnt follow that you are supposed to act as if it does exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yes, but I dont dictate how a woman will live her life.
It is, and should be, her choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Its not "he obeys her or she obeys him".
There are agreements and disagreements.
They both only do that which they agree to, dont do that which they disagree about.
Of course, there are cases where decision has to be made, but they disagree.
Then its solved through discussion and compromise.
Created:
Serving God or making deals with God can be beneficial if that God exists.
Now, most people want to enjoy life.
Its kind of a given that when you create humans with hormones which reward them for certain action, they are more likely to do that action.
God, if he exists, intentionally designed humans to be rewarded with happiness when they disobey him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
you are straw manning as no one is talking about force or violence
Sorry, but most societies where "man is over wife" tend to come with more violence.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
People in study reduced calories by 25% for 2 years.
I reduced mine by about 50% of my normal take, but I dont have hunger problems.
Of course, I do take all the vitamins to make sure it doesnt interfere with results.
I just wonder if I will further lose weight, because for the past 2 days my weight has mostly stayed close to same.
I keep track of calories by only eating food which has calorie number on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I agree that there is nature at play, but I disagree that man can force a woman.
There is a big difference between willing submission and violence.
The former is somewhat acceptable.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Those who restricted calories reported better moods and less daily tension
It did improve my mood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
How do you all feel about a man being over his wife?
I dont think that man should be over wife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then one would be in the position of accepting every unproven proposition simultaneously, even when they contradict each other.
Accepting as possibility, yes, not as total truth.
This is a contradiction. You're arguing by not knowing what the probability is, we therefore know what the probability is (50%).As a matter of practicality we would be right to act as if the probability were even because we have no other choice. But that is very different from asserting the probability is in fact equal.
We know that both options are of equally unknown probability.
This translates to 50% probability, since 50% = 50%.
Both options can happen and both options can have 10%, 20% or 50% or 100% chance of happening.
Since they can have any probability, the average of all is 50%.
Think of it with this example. If you were given the option to enter doors which might kill you or do nothing at all, would you enter those doors?
The probability is unknown, yet the mere option of being killed being present as that which might happen makes it undesirable to enter those doors.
Created:
Anyone who has a smartphone knows:
Reduce brightness on screen and battery will last longer.
Turn off internet or unnecessary apps and battery lasts longer.
Turn on power saving mode and battery lasts longer.
This made me wonder: does human body have "power saving mode"?
Of course it does.
The main trick is in metabolism, which is the amount of energy body uses.
I figured, if I reduce my metabolism, I will need less food.
So, here are the scientific principles I followed in an experiment of living on just under 1000 calories a day:
1. Sleeping for 12 hours
When sleeping, you burn less calories. Therefore, longer sleep means less calories burned per day.
Some monkeys sleep for 17 hours, so I figured its probably to conserve energy.
So I decided to sleep at least 12 hours a day.
2. Dehydration
Water increases metabolism, therefore not drinking water reduces metabolism.
I decided to only drink a little bit of water when I feel thirsty.
3. One meal per day
Its obvious that digestion uses calories, and eating often is related to increase in metabolism.
So by logic, one meal per day is supposed to reduce metabolism.
4. Under 1000 calories meal
There is a theory among scientists that reducing calorie intake causes body to conserve energy, causing that less energy is needed to function.
5. No activity
Activity burns calories. Therefore, lack of activity saves calories. Of course, I was not able to practice this completely, as no activity is very difficult to maintain.
6. No coffee
I wasnt able to go without coffee, as I like coffee, but coffee increases metabolism.
7. Losing weight
When person loses weight, calorie needs decrease. So less weight translates to needing less food to maintain weight.
8. Slow, shallow breathing
The more you breathe, the more calories you use. Faster, deeper breathing uses more calories.
9. Skipping eating for a day or two
Not eating for an entire day can reduce metabolism further. I did start by skipping eating for a few days.
10. Keeping comfortable temperature
Being exposed to cold increases metabolism.
So what are the results?
I spent some time not eating, then I moved to eating a bit.
Despite being on somewhat less than 1000 calories a day for the past few days, I am not really losing as much weight as expected.
I am barely losing any weight, despite being overweight and eating much less calories than daily needed to maintain weight by official data.
So I figured I probably managed to reduce my metabolism and adjust calorie needs to somewhere about 1000.
What are the applications of this particular research?
There is survival application. In survival situations, you will want to survive longer with same amount of food.
There is some military application, as there are scenarios where soldiers get cut off and are forced to survive with limited supplies.
I dont recommend people trying to copy this. Its a new research and 1000 calorie diets arent exactly well tested for safety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Probability is determined by using known past examples as a means of assessing the likelihood of future outcomes. So once it is established that the answer is unknown, probability is definitionally excluded.
Actually, when probability is unknown, it follows that each point of probability (0 to 100) is equally likely.
That results in average (50%) as what is the obvious position for probability of probability.
Since 2 options are of unknown probability, one can be 100% but it also can be 0%.
So the average is 50% for both.
The ideas at that point shift. Once we get to the unknown we're now into the realm of philosophy. That is, if a proposition is unknowable then we act in accordance with logical defaults. In terms of existence, the default position is that nothing exists until it is demonstrated to exist, which is why the burden of proof is on theists.
That can be your default position, but one can also go with the idea that things dont exist only when demonstrated to not exist, where otherwise they remain an option.
While the common sense practical approach is that proof determines what is real, the logic is not limited to just that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is more evidence for aliens that there ever is or will be for a "god" that is claimed to be Omnipresence refers who exists everywhere all at once. Omnipotence describes an all-powerful god, and omniscience referring to an all-knowing god.
Well, I agree, and many will probably lose faith if aliens are detected.
But some will find a way to explain how God created aliens, just forgot to mention it in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It seems that God often "tells" people to do bad things.
Which is why the idea of God is dangerous.
It can justify anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yes, in scientific terminology that would be an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" which by their nature are also useless hypotheses as they predict nothing and can't be differentiated from contradictory hypotheses in the same category.Any theory of god that falls under this category is also useless for the same reasons. If there is no way to know if the theory is true there is no way to differentiate the theory from competing theories.
As long as lack of existence cannot be proven, it carries conversation to nowhere, since neither side can logically prevail.
Its kinda like cat in the box.
Cat might be in the box, might not be in the box.
And undetectable cat carries it further, as even opening the box would not disprove undetectable cat.
What they agree to is irrelevant. They have scripture. The implications of that scripture are inescapable.They can claim to believe in an undetectable god, but that would require the renouncement of the scripture as the source of their knowledge.
Christians already deny 99% of the Bible through:
"Old covenants being no longer valid",
"Translations being wrong or out of context",
"Metaphors in the Bible".
"Separation of God's words and actions from words and actions of disciples and followers in the Bible"
I have never even met a Christian who follows scriptures to the letter and literally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The definition of rain implies detectability. That is the point.
So an undetectable rain would be a possibility with any definition which doesnt include detectability.
And its impossible to detect undetectable rain, thus impossible to prove that undetectable rain doesnt exist.
And Christians will never agree to define God as detectable unless he is actually detectable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, there are far more options than that.There could be multiple gods of different natures. Even if there was only one god there would be as many options as there are permutations of a single god.
The term "God" includes all versions and all numbers of Gods.
Its a truism that if multiple Gods exist, God exists.
Absence of proof can be proof of absence when the proposition in question should by definition produce evidence (proof). If I define rain such that it would fill an open top beaker left in the open, then the lack of water in the beaker is proof that there was no rain.
Actually, that would at best only be proof of no detectable rain.
You assume that what you dont see doesnt exist, but that is only proof that you do not see, not that it doesnt exist.
To explain it even more simply, even if you defined rain as water that you see and are aware of right now, you wouldnt be able to prove that you dont see it and arent aware of it.
Thats because seeing and being aware are circular, where you only know that you see because you see, circular reasoning of "X is true because X is true".
Created:
Posted in:
There are only 2 options:
A. God exists
B. God doesnt exist
One could say, because there is no proof for A, B is true.
But that would be an assumption that B is true if there is no proof for A, because B can be false even if there is no proof for A.
Thats because there is also no proof for B.
One could even say it in a different way: A is true because there is no proof for B.
Since logic works both ways, it follows that its an assumption to treat either way as true.
So to conclude, absence of proof is not proof of absence when you have two contradicting options, both without proof, where one must be correct.
However, absence of proof doesnt fall outside of facts, but in the facts of probability.
Fact is something which is proven by observation.
By observation, we see that God either exists either doesnt.
Its a fact that one of those must be true, and its a fact that we dont know which one.
Therefore, we would be dealing with 50% chance of God existing, since by laws of probability, when two options have unknown probability where one option must be true, it is treated as 50% probability.
When probability is equally unknown on both sides, it follows that both sides are equally possible since unknown probability of one side equals unknown probability of the other side.
Since its impossible to prove that something supernatural doesnt exist, you could say that religious people have an advantage in proving God.
Therefore, denying any proof they present would just return the status of probability to 50%, which is a good probability for religious people.
But religious people gave attributes to God, such as "completely good", which led to problem of evil.
Since "completely good" contains only good and its actions result in only good, the existence of evil humans contradicts that, as existence of evil humans is a result of God's action of creating those specific humans.
Therefore, God's action resulted in evil humans, where lack of that action would result in no evil humans.
So you could say that religious people harmed their own cause by giving God attributes which God cannot have.
Its not a proof that God doesnt exist, but it is a proof that their specific "completely good" God cannot exist.
Created: